 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New escribió:
> I posted "Congrats, you've reinvented
> Prolog" and then deleted it when I realized it came out wrong.
Neat, I didn't know if canceling messages worked on this server.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Orchid XP v7 <voi### [at] dev null> wrote:
>>>>> I think there are easier ways to get laid than Prolog.
>>>> Such as...?
>>> Some use money.
>
>> I'm sorry, I thought we were talking about "easier". :-P
>
> Oh, I believe it's very easy. Give money, get something in return.
> (Never tried it, though.)
I meant that getting money appears to be far harder than getting
Prolog... ;-)
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> I meant that getting money appears to be far harder than getting
> Prolog... ;-)
>
You don't need that much money.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> I think you'd find that a lot of computer *users* don't write raytracers
>> in their spare time. I can think of a handful of users here who probably
>> haven't (just off the top of my head).
>
> OK, well maybe it's just a vocal minority that makes it seem otherwise
> then? (How many times is *that* the way??)
I think that the people in this ng are the people who are most likely in the
whole world to even consider writing a ray tracer. And even then, I
wouldn't imagine that many have actually written one, and even fewer gone
beyond the basic coloured spheres on a plane test.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
> Darren New escribió:
>> I posted "Congrats, you've reinvented Prolog" and then deleted it when
>> I realized it came out wrong.
>
> Neat, I didn't know if canceling messages worked on this server.
Via NNTP, it does. At least it seems to, yes.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
"That's pretty. Where's that?"
"It's the Age of Channelwood."
"We should go there on vacation some time."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 27 Mar 2008 17:59:24 +0000, Orchid XP v7 wrote:
>>> Heh. You wanna know how it works? ;-)
>>
>> Well, I read the message you wrote, and that seemed to cover a fair bit
>> of it. But sure, I'd be interested in more details....
>
> OK, well, I'm sure once I've posted this Darren will tell me I've done
> it all wrong, but hey. :-)
Well, you don't learn without making mistakes (that's not "you" as in
*you*, it's "you" as in pretty much everybody. :-) )
> [As should be superbly obvious, I got all the techniques out of a book.
> Obviously I'm not this intelligent on my own. All the code, however, I
> wrote myself...]
Well, don't knock yourself. I don't even have a book on the topic, so
you're one step ahead of me there.
> So that's unification, and that's how you check whether two expressions
> are or can be made equal. [Incidentally, this is apparently the
> algorithm Haskell uses for automatically determining what type
> signitures your program should have. Each item has a type, which might
> be a specific type like "Integer", or something involving a type
> variable, and the compiler needs to check it's possible to unify
> everything and determine the most general types, etc.]
OK, with you so far....
> Now, if only I could make it so you don't have to write a Haskell
> program every time you want to execute a logic predicate, I'd get round
> to doing stuff like the example where you define who's related to who,
> and then you can ask the computer whether somebody is or isn't a direct
> descendent of somebody else. [But without actually implementing the
> inferance algorithm yourself.] Neat stuff...
That is pretty cool - even if the concepts came out of a book,
implementing them is something entirely different - you seem to
understand this stuff quite well...
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v7 wrote:
> OK, well, I'm sure once I've posted this Darren will tell me I've done
> it all wrong, but hey. :-)
Not at all. I expect you understand this better than I do.
At one time, I understood how to do unification, but nowadays I'd have
to go look it up (or work it out from scratch again). I can *use* it
OK, but actually implementing something that does the unification isn't
something I've already memorized.
Kudos to you for working it out on your own. :-)
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
"That's pretty. Where's that?"
"It's the Age of Channelwood."
"We should go there on vacation some time."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Mar 2008 00:23:52 -0700, Chambers wrote:
>
>> Jim Henderson wrote:
>>> Language is a funny thing. I heard the construct "is was" the other
>>> day. The context was "the question is was this the question?" (not
>>> exactly, but in that structure). Funny to listen to....
>> This is unstructured grammar. You need to implement the structured /
>> modular paradigm in order to improve legibility, efficacy, and general
>> communicative success :)
>>
>> In other words, "The question is, 'was this a question?'"
>
> Well, yeah, but unless your name is Victor Borge, punctuation isn't
> something you hear (per se).
>
> Jim
You mean it's not something you say, per se!
I'm pretty sure anyone can *hear* phonetic punctuation :)
--
...Ben Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Mar 2008 11:50:51 -0500, Warp wrote:
>
>> Orchid XP v7 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>>> Damn. If only girls found Prolog sexy... I'd get laid! Laid, I say!!
>>> :-(
>> I think there are easier ways to get laid than Prolog.
>
> Best line of the day. :-)
>
> Jim
Maybe we should start a quote db just for this group...
--
...Ben Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sat, 29 Mar 2008 19:40:42 -0700, Chambers wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Thu, 27 Mar 2008 11:50:51 -0500, Warp wrote:
>>
>>> Orchid XP v7 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>>>> Damn. If only girls found Prolog sexy... I'd get laid! Laid, I say!!
>>>> :-(
>>> I think there are easier ways to get laid than Prolog.
>>
>> Best line of the day. :-)
>>
>> Jim
>
> Maybe we should start a quote db just for this group...
That's not a bad idea. :-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
